Well, my last post certainly stirred up a hornet’s nest of angry responses.
KikkiPlanet, of course, is the most vehement in her response:
Let’s examine a few points here: First, calling Kikki a “Terrorist” isn’t an ad hominem “attack”. There is no such thing as an “ad hominem” attack. Ad hominem is a form of red herring argumentation technique.
Wikipedia explains ad hominem this way:
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.
In my previous posting, I did indeed characterize Kikki as a “Terrorist”, but not as an attempt to refute her arguments. I refuted those arguments separately. What I did, and I believe correctly, was characterize the persuasion tactics she uses as terrorism – use of fear to influence people.
I would not have an issue with Kikki’s arguments if she had explained, logically, without hysterics, why she didn’t like conscience rights. Maybe she truly does believe that marriage commissioners should be forced to marry any couple who wants to get married. That’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold. I disagree with it, but that doesn’t matter in this case. There are numerous calm, rational, and logical arguments one can make to back up why, for example, marriage commissioners should be forced to marry anyone, just as there are numerous clam, rational and logical arguments one can make why marriage commissioner should have the right to act in accordance with their own personal moral compass. Who’s correct? That’s for the voters to decide on April 23, but reducing the argument to hyperbolic garbage, suggesting that doctors will be allowed to refuse to treat people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation is nothing more than absurdity. It raises the spectre of fear, and, by using that fear as a weapon to influence how people vote, Kikki is engaging in terrorism.